80611 réponses à ce sujet

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

He's saying the difference is that EDI and the Geth didn't have Shepard phone them in and ask if it was cool with them. Even though they never actually die. And it's a hallucination.

It's not about phoning them to see if it's "cool with them". It's about staying true to Shepard's ideals, which you seem to want to abandon just to destroy the Reapers no matter who gets in your way, friend or foe.

[jojon2se]

Just a quick: "Freddy; you're not alone".

Accepting refusal just as a /possible/ way to break indoctrination and that it may have been misjudged, does in no way harm any form of "purity" of the indoctrination theory.
If anybody feel that toeing any perceived one-true-way line, is to give literalist detractors an opening: The ability to adapt to changed conditions and find new solutions is a strength - not a sign of weakness, despite what some of the world's stay-the-course-try-using-our-mass-and-momentum-to-plow-right-though-that-iceberg people would strongarm you into submitting to -- real world and stories both -- determination is useless if blind.

Many of the arguments I see towards either A or B, here, are equally supportive of both, the way I read them.

If I am unflexible myself, I can hardly expect others to keep an open mind to anything I have to say.

So; I don't try to force-feed you my interpretations and put words into your mouths and you extend me the same favour, ok? (If not; Fine, be that way.)

EDIT: Oops! Agreement-to-disagree already in place, before I got the above posted. *dropped*

Modifié par jojon2se, 16 octobre 2012 - 06:53 .

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

He's saying the difference is that EDI and the Geth didn't have Shepard phone them in and ask if it was cool with them. Even though they never actually die. And it's a hallucination.

It's not about phoning them to see if it's "cool with them". It's about staying true to Shepard's ideals, which you seem to want to abandon just to destroy the Reapers no matter who gets in your way, friend or foe.

Let it go. I am.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

He's saying the difference is that EDI and the Geth didn't have Shepard phone them in and ask if it was cool with them. Even though they never actually die. And it's a hallucination.

It's not about phoning them to see if it's "cool with them". It's about staying true to Shepard's ideals, which you seem to want to abandon just to destroy the Reapers no matter who gets in your way, friend or foe.

Let it go. I am.

Sorry, I didn't realize you came to terms with me.
Thanks for listening to me, even though it may have gotten a bit heated.

[Hrothdane]

Did the leaders of the the earth task forces not know that most--if not all--of the soldiers they were sending into battle would die because the enemy would not let them have victory otherwise? They were a hell of a lot more certain they would be sending people to their deaths than Shepard is when Starbinger insinuates that synthetics would die.

Don't misunderstand me; I would have happily taken the Gurren Lagann route and told the Reapers to take the Crucible and screw themselves with it. No other choice would have entered my mind as a reasonable choice.

That isn't how this universe works, though. BioWare has shown this before with Virmire and Arrival. In this respect, I find myself not liking the Mass Effect universe as much as I would like to, but as I said before, the universe belongs to BioWare; Shepard belongs to us. We cannot change the brute facts of the game's universe just as we cannot change the brute facts of our own lives, but we can choose how we react.

Ultimately, you have to take the game's universe for what it is. If you are actually roleplaying your Shepard, then any choice is valid as long as it is consistent with your roleplaying. Thus, refuse is a perfectly fine choice. A character railing against the way their universe works is a well-established tragic story. But remember, it will be a tragedy in this setting.

Of course, BioWare could still implement victory through refuse without IT, which would in fact make refuse the best choice. In such a case, I would probably pick refuse as well. Until such a development though, IT remains the interpretation of the game's universe that makes the most sense to me and destroy remains my preferred option.

Modifié par Hrothdane, 16 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

He's saying the difference is that EDI and the Geth didn't have Shepard phone them in and ask if it was cool with them. Even though they never actually die. And it's a hallucination.

It's not about phoning them to see if it's "cool with them". It's about staying true to Shepard's ideals, which you seem to want to abandon just to destroy the Reapers no matter who gets in your way, friend or foe.

Let it go. I am.

Sorry, I didn't realize you came to terms with me.
Thanks for listening to me, even though it may have gotten a bit heated.

It may have seemed heated, but I never actually lost my temper or meant to insult you.

[BatmanTurian]

Hrothdane wrote...

Did the leaders of the the earth task forces not know that most--if not all--of the soldiers they were sending into battle would die because the enemy would not let them have victory otherwise? They were a hell of a lot more certain they would be sending people to their deaths than Shepard is when Starbinger insinuates that synthetics would die.

Don't misunderstand me; I would have happily taken the Gurren Lagann route and told the Reapers to take the Crucible and screw themselves with it. No other choice would have entered my mind as a reasonable choice.

That isn't how this universe works, though. BioWare has shown this before with Virmire and Arrival. In this respect, I find myself not liking the Mass Effect universe as much as I would like to, but as I said before, the universe belongs to BioWare; Shepard belongs to us. We cannot change the brute facts of the game's universe just as we cannot change the brute facts of our own lives, but we can choose how we react.

Ultimately, you have to take the game's universe for what it is. If you are actually roleplaying your Shepard, then any choice is valid as long as it is consistent with your roleplaying. Thus, refuse is a perfectly fine choice. A character railing against the way their universe works is a well-established tragic story. But remember, it will be a tragedy in this setting.

Of course, BioWare could still implement victory through refuse without IT, which would in fact make refuse the best choice. In such a case, I would probably pick refuse as well. Until such a development though, IT remains the interpretation of the game's universe that makes the most sense to me and destroy remains my preferred option.

And you mirror my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

[demersel]

Same situation as on Virmire - you blow up the facility, but with one of your men still inside.

[BleedingUranium]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

He's saying the difference is that EDI and the Geth didn't have Shepard phone them in and ask if it was cool with them. Even though they never actually die. And it's a hallucination.

It's not about phoning them to see if it's "cool with them". It's about staying true to Shepard's ideals, which you seem to want to abandon just to destroy the Reapers no matter who gets in your way, friend or foe.

Let it go. I am.

Sorry, I didn't realize you came to terms with me.
Thanks for listening to me, even though it may have gotten a bit heated.

It may have seemed heated, but I never actually lost my temper or meant to insult you.

Me either, I do respect your position and you Freddy, I was just disagreeing with you. It's good to have debates like this sometimes, as even within IT we do have differing views and morals, both in game and as people. I'd also like to add that while I disagree with you, as this was a moral discussion, there is no right and wrong

[demersel]

At any rate - shepard's ideals - are a figment of your imagination. There is no ideals or morality of shepard, except of your own.

[Restrider]

Restrider wrote...

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I proudly present the results of the fifth poll and would also like to remind you that the sixth poll and my long-time survey regarding the first-playthrough chioces are opened for votes.

[36812180234]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Sure, if Destroy was the only viable way of breaking free from indoctrination-induced dream, the Geth and EDI would be alive, but you would have compromised your ideals, b/c then it would show that Shepard would be willing to murder his own friends just to achieve victory. That's is not the real Shepard. Again, Shep said that if we allowed this war to turn on our friends then "war turns into murder". I am only keeping true to Shepard's ideals, that is why the Destroy option is wrong. Refusal is the only way to break free, that is my view of the IT.

Yes...
They have convinced you that using the crucible to destroy the reapers is wrong...

Let me give you a picture.
Using a mysterious gun can kill your enemy, but you don't know how to use this mysterious gun.
Then your enemy comes and tells you how this gun works, but the only way to kill him is if you put your friend who has absolutely no idea what's going on in front of him and kill him in order to kill your enemy.
I would never do that to a friend.

So you would just give up and let the enemy kill you. Okaayyy.

No, I would find another way, or i would die trying. Stop making it seem as if I don't want the Reapers dead. I want them NON-EXISTENT.

then you don't Refuse because you never leave the dream and they kill Shepard and everyone else.

My Shepard refuses and dies a hero. I don't want to have the blood of the Geth and EDI on my hands and be hailed as a false hero.

What’s about having the blood of all sentient races on your hands instead? Besides, if you believe in what the Master Reaper says, you should not expect being hailed as a hero, since you also have plenty of implants.
Its not about the nice victory – its about the survival of sentient life. I (or my Shepard at that) choose the option, offering the best possibility of defeating the Reapers. And that is Destroy. I am supposed to dye with this option. If 90% of all sentient dies with that decision – fine. As far as the remaining 10% survive to start rebuilding.
And for defenders of Refuse, I have a question – go you know a fairy tale about an old man and a golden fish? The Master Reaper: “You have the options of Control, Synthesis and Destroy”. Shepard: “Go f*** yourself – I here to Destroy”. Sounds stupid to me. The only question should be “where is the kill switch?” 

[Jusseb]

Still one of the meanings of the word 'Crucible' actually is - "A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial"

So if we're to believe that explanation, than the Crucible actually is a 'test' and hopefully one of the many questions will become clear on 29th of November.

[paxxton]

Jusseb wrote...

Still one of the meanings of the word 'Crucible' actually is - "A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial"

So if we're to believe that explanation, than the Crucible actually is a 'test' and hopefully one of the many questions will become clear on 29th of November.

November 27th, actually. If the Crucible is supposed to be a test for Shepard, and assuming it's a trap, the only viable option is to Refuse using it. Not going for Destroy. But still the only ending that explicitly shows Shepard alive is Destroy. So maybe in Refuse Shepard has to fight his way out of the Citadel. Mentally (IT) or physically (Literal).

[Davik Kang]

paxxton wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

Still one of the meanings of the word 'Crucible' actually is - "A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial"

So if we're to believe that explanation, than the Crucible actually is a 'test' and hopefully one of the many questions will become clear on 29th of November.

November 27th, actually. If the Crucible is supposed to be a test for Shepard, and assuming it's a trap, the only viable option is to Refuse using it. Not going for Destroy. But still the only ending that explicitly shows Shepard alive is Destroy. So maybe in Refuse Shepard has to fight his way out of the Citadel. Mentally (IT) or physically (Literal).

Dude.  In Literal, Refuse = everybody dies.

The Crucible is also the name given to the final test in US Marine Corps training.  The final part of that test is a severly draining exercise called 'The Reaper' which sometimes involves mental tests (loyalty etc.).

The final mission of the game was a test for Shepard.  This is nothing new.  We all know it's a test.  That applies whether Literal or IT.  The only thing we don't know is what the right answer is, if there is one.  And Bioware aren't gonna tell us that.  You have to decide for yourself.

[paxxton]

Davik Kang wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

Still one of the meanings of the word 'Crucible' actually is - "A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial"

So if we're to believe that explanation, than the Crucible actually is a 'test' and hopefully one of the many questions will become clear on 29th of November.

November 27th, actually. If the Crucible is supposed to be a test for Shepard, and assuming it's a trap, the only viable option is to Refuse using it. Not going for Destroy. But still the only ending that explicitly shows Shepard alive is Destroy. So maybe in Refuse Shepard has to fight his way out of the Citadel. Mentally (IT) or physically (Literal).

Dude.  In Literal, Refuse = everybody dies.

The Crucible is also the name given to the final test in US Marine Corps training.  The final part of that test is a severly draining exercise called 'The Reaper' which sometimes involves mental tests (loyalty etc.).

The final mission of the game was a test for Shepard.  This is nothing new.  We all know it's a test.  That applies whether Literal or IT.  The only thing we don't know is what the right answer is, if there is one.  And Bioware aren't gonna tell us that.  You have to decide for yourself.

I know what Liara says but maybe it's because we don't have enough War Assets or types of War Assets. Maybe with a future DLC the message could be changed if we gather even more allies. Or perhaps, it's just that we get to know how the war ends but still get to play the middle part.

[Jusseb]

Davik Kang wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Jusseb wrote...

Still one of the meanings of the word 'Crucible' actually is - "A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial"

So if we're to believe that explanation, than the Crucible actually is a 'test' and hopefully one of the many questions will become clear on 29th of November.

November 27th, actually. If the Crucible is supposed to be a test for Shepard, and assuming it's a trap, the only viable option is to Refuse using it. Not going for Destroy. But still the only ending that explicitly shows Shepard alive is Destroy. So maybe in Refuse Shepard has to fight his way out of the Citadel. Mentally (IT) or physically (Literal).

Dude.  In Literal, Refuse = everybody dies.

The Crucible is also the name given to the final test in US Marine Corps training.  The final part of that test is a severly draining exercise called 'The Reaper' which sometimes involves mental tests (loyalty etc.).

The final mission of the game was a test for Shepard.  This is nothing new.  We all know it's a test.  That applies whether Literal or IT.  The only thing we don't know is what the right answer is, if there is one.  And Bioware aren't gonna tell us that.  You have to decide for yourself.

I don't agree that Bioware isn't going to answer that. I believe that every DLC will release a piece of the puzzle and that someday those questions will be answered. 

Guessing really doesn't fit as an ending to the Mass Effect story. 

But that's what i think, if it's true remains to be seen.

[masster blaster]

Guys I was plauing Assassins Crees 2, and it hit me. We already know that we are playing as Desmon, and he goes into the animas to look at what his ansestor did. Yet we play as Ezio, and when we get to the end. ( sorry but spoiler aleart if you haven't played it yet), but when your talking to Juno I believe, she is giving the message to Desmon like she knew he was watching.

Let's look at ME3 for a bit. Shepard is our vessal. Shepard is our puppet and we're pulling his/her strings, and when Anderson says " They are controlling you." He looks behind TIM's shoulder, and looks like he is talking to Shepard, yet we are Shepard, so he is talking to us because Shepard doesn't know what's really happening, but we do.

Also in AC: Brotherhood ( spoiler aleart) Desmon is being controlled by some force I think the appel of edin is doing it, or the godess. Anyways Desmon/the player has to kill the girl you meet in AC the first one, and the player has two chocies.

Kill her even though no matter what you do you will kill her, or turn off your game, and refuse to do it.

That's what"s happenning at the end. Shepard( us, not game Shepard us) is being Indoctrinated. The Reapers know that game Shepard is already being Controlled by something else. Something far more superior to the Reapers.

What I am trying to say is. The brat knows that a good portion of the gamers( BW) can't kill the Geth, or EDI, so the Catalyst presents Control, and Synthesis. It wants one of thesis chocies to be picked so it can have Shepard all to himself.

Also if we refuse to kill the Reapers, then we fail. It's a test right, so if we Shepard give up, then the galaxy in real life dies. Yes puzzle theory, but what if it's Destroy only. Think about it. We have three endings that go against Destroy. Bioware wants the fans to pick the other three because they appel to the other players own mind.

Somewhere along the road We ( Shepard) are going to have to face the nightmer and wake up. Hence the endings. We " wake up"

Modifié par masster blaster, 16 octobre 2012 - 01:14 .

[69_Gio_69]

I was just thinking, the kid is the personification of all the people shepard couldn't save. He get's nightmares of the kid and hears the voices of his fallen comrades. That is Shepard's ultimate weakness. The fear he can't save everybody. Now in two of the four choices Shepard can save everybody. Coincidence?

[Eryri]

 Hi folks. P'nawn da o Gymru.

Do you guys think that the Omega DLC might be so large because they have rolled the planned second and third dlc packs together, as TSA suggested the other night?

I'm thinking that as the holidays are coming up, they'll be wanting to shift lots of copies of the trilogy pack, which is unlikely to happen as ME3 as still known as the "great game with a terrible ending". Maybe they're planning to bring the IT reveal forward to resurrect interest in the franchise before Christmas?

[smokingotter1]

masster blaster wrote...

Guys I was plauing Assassins Crees 2, and it hit me. We already know that we are playing as Desmon, and he goes into the animas to look at what his ansestor did. Yet we play as Ezio, and when we get to the end. ( sorry but spoiler aleart if you haven't played it yet), but when your talking to Juno I believe, she is giving the message to Desmon like she knew he was watching.

Let's look at ME3 for a bit. Shepard is our vessal. Shepard is our puppet and we're pulling his/her strings, and when Anderson says " They are controlling you." He looks behind TIM's shoulder, and looks like he is talking to Shepard, yet we are Shepard, so he is talking to us because Shepard doesn't know what's really happening, but we do.

Also in AC: Brotherhood ( spoiler aleart) Desmon is being controlled by some force I think the appel of edin is doing it, or the godess. Anyways Desmon/the player has to kill the girl you meet in AC the first one, and the player has two chocies.

Kill her even though no matter what you do you will kill her, or turn off your game, and refuse to do it.

That's what"s happenning at the end. Shepard( us, not game Shepard us) is being Indoctrinated. The Reapers know that game Shepard is already being Controlled by something else. Something far more superior to the Reapers.

What I am trying to say is. The brat knows that a good portion of the gamers( BW) can't kill the Geth, or EDI, so the Catalyst presents Control, and Synthesis. It wants one of thesis chocies to be picked so it can have Shepard all to himself.

Also if we refuse to kill the Reapers, then we fail. It's a test right, so if we Shepard give up, then the galaxy in real life dies. Yes puzzle theory, but what if it's Destroy only. Think about it. We have three endings that go against Destroy. Bioware wants the fans to pick the other three because they appel to the other players own mind.

Somewhere along the road We ( Shepard) are going to have to face the nightmer and wake up. Hence the endings. We " wake up"

I would take a different view. Indoctrination takes control of the limbic system which controls the prefrontal cortex which is responsible for decision making. It's part of the human brain not the mind entirely.

Throughout the three games you the player control Shepard's limbic system, namely his movement, decision making, but it's ultimately Commander Shepard, female/male, paragon/renage who provides explanation for why they are making that decision. Ever make a decision without knowing why?

The reapers are fighting for control for Shepard's mind, not with Shepard who without player intervention would probably have fallen awhile ago to the reapers. That is why Shepard moves slugglishly, the reapers strip the player of Shepard's HUD display, and why the decision chamber aerial view looks like a Mass Effect discussion wheel.

When Shepard is in the decision chamber his mind is finally open to new possibilities thanks to the reapers and indoctrination which acts like a catalyst (see what I did there). But the player still controls Shepard, you're the last line of defense.

So what really happens in control/synthesis? No one knows, you surrendered your avatar in that universe, Shepard belongs to the reapers now, enjoy a nice slid show the reapers prepared for you.

[paxxton]

Eryri wrote...

 Hi folks. P'nawn da o Gymru.

Do you guys think that the Omega DLC might be so large because they have rolled the planned second and third dlc packs together, as TSA suggested the other night?

I'm thinking that as the holidays are coming up, they'll be wanting to shift lots of copies of the trilogy pack, which is unlikely to happen as ME3 as still known as the "great game with a terrible ending". Maybe they're planning to bring the IT reveal forward to resurrect interest in the franchise before Christmas?

Not sure but might be a smart move on BioWare's part.

[Jusseb]

And it's about ****ing time.

[Restrider]

FreddyCast wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Then I suppose my theory will be different, because I would never in ten thousand years pick Destroy on its own "merits." I'll find a way for Shepard to prove her own indoctrination to herself.

So be it.

The outcome is inevitable.

You will succumb and ascend. Or you will be annihilated.

You will be raised to a new existence.


We will bring your species into harmony with our own.

Preserve Xilizhra's body if possible...

I too believe that the Destroy option is a compromise and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice (all because the EC changed the Destroy ending).
To me, refuse is the only option, despite BW giving you the middle finger for refusing Godbrat's nonsense.
I'm going to beat the Reapers on MY TERMS, whether BW likes it or not.

QFT